For about 1.5 years now I have devoted 18 hours a day to the perfection of developing the ultimate 3-D systems possible. Reception to our modest 3-D display at CEDIA was acclaimed by several heavy weights including the fastidious Amir (the developer of HD DVD) who despite a small litany of qualifications did acknowledge that for one brief moment we indeed had the absolute best 3-D at CEDIA with the big fish that hovered to above the 3rd row; also Wolfgang's endorsement (he is the most respected 3-D photographer in Germany with 30 years experience) of the repatriated 3-D system from CEDIA 2010 actually points to the fact that it will surpass movie theater quality in many ways.

While having 30 + 3D Blu-rays this holiday season is an exciting prospect (because let's face it 3-d IS NOT A CHEAP IMITATION of reality but a groundswell renaissance of super-beneficial Brain Stimulation technology affecting areas of otherwise DEAD SPACE or underutilized sections of it; a treasure trove of unfathomable therapeutic dividends too numerous to begin absorbing). To those that are still fighting 3-D, you are choosing to become genetically disadvantaged from the group that will absorb 3-D, 3-D IS FOREVER and this is why.

Even though native 3-D is fantastic and special when shot (in my view ) opposite to Katzenberg's and Cameron's Old School German methods of populating the back lobe of the Percival zone of comfort, movies like Journey to the center of Earth, and Resident Evil Afterlife and Imax content actually populate the back lobe (behind the screen) and the front lobe (protruding out of the screen like the cedia grouper-or cod did).

So I saw a box that converts anything and everything you throw at it, and even though it just comes out on the market I saw 3-D completely indistinguishable from Avatar or monster versus aliens, perfect parallax continuity, no pincushion background distortion and most importantly complete absence of occlusion errors (more on that but that is the big tell tale of 2-D conversions- well that and the character profile beveling seen on Clash of the Titans and Piranha - Warner write a po for this processor you need it badly).

When in the beginning of the Blu-ray of disc one from LIFE (BBC) the helicopter is hovering over the river feeding the tallest waterfall in Venezuela, (also depicted in the movie Up) the rocky topography is clearly depicted with better 3-d THAN UP, then when the camera proceeds to continue off the cliff revealing the abyss, that is when I think I might have passed gas, I am a big sufferer of vertigo, and from that controlled demonstration ( I can cross reference images seen on Samsung LCD's to those projected on DCI Barcos mentally compensating for the huge display quality delta but still knowing how the image seen on one will look on the other). In my estimation the 2-D to 3-D conversion completely trumpeted my previous most vertiginous Native 3-D experience in the cinema and with the superkontrast in UP.

Trust me it wont take a Smpte paper to prove what I am telling you now, there are sufficient cues in 2-D content to properly replicate stereoscopic-photo-realistic renditions of high altitude gut dropping dimensionalized imaging. From many tests I requisitioned yesterday I can state that Natively shot 3-D, in NO way has any advantage over this Lockheed Martin Spy Satellite Dimensionalization technology. It appears when the chiefs of staffs where looking at the Kremlin before perestroika, they were doing so in glorious 3-D , they probably deemed it important enough for national security to have sunk billions into it, the end product decades of declassification later: the end product still looks and feels like a Billion bucks.

First let me clarify that Cameron and Katzembergs are my absolute heroes , with the exception of their aversion from risking the general imaging population of the frontal lobe of the percival zone of comfort- their work is the standard by which all 3-D needs to be gauged, well Pixar too.

I am not criticizing or undermining them in any way they are just small fish compared to the billions of dollars that Ronald Regan gave the pentagon in 1984 to develop spy satellite technology with state of the art stereoscopic, photo-realistic DIMENSIONALISATION and resolution enhancement capabilities.

A peace dividend from 1984 will literally dictate the entire 2-D sourced universe of home cinema for the next 30 or 50 years. I state my reputation on this.

Big projection company's I am going to try the honor system, you know I don't want you copying me, so I am going to let it rest for a while, but I will be watching.

So, you're saying that the legions of 10 year olds who are slaving away 24/7 with tedious Titanic frame conversions are out of work? That's just wrong!

Assuming this isn't some cruel joke, I'm really looking forward to reading more about it. I'd love to see good conversions of lots of films and television shows. Being able to do this real time could provide all the content needed to satisfy the hunger of the 3D-starved masses (me).

I didn't think 2D to 3D could ever come close to "real" 3D, but I have to admit that there are times when I've really enjoyed it on my Samsung plasma - at least for certain types of content. I'd never confuse it with the real thing for more than a few seconds, but it's staved off 3D starvation for me several times. Without it, I don't know why anyone would even care if they bought a 3D TV in the last few months.

Excellent post! Would of loved to seen that demo. Im a huge fan a believer in 3D. My local cinemaplex has a NEC RealD 3DXL shooting on a 35ft screen that I am absolutly addicted to! Its only 5 blocks from my home so Im there ALOT. I try to make it to a 3D showing at least 2 times a week, sometimes 3 or 4. Ive seen Megamind 3D, which I really enjoyed, 3 times this week. By next year I will for sure be buying a 3D projector.

Bring it on, I can put together a very decent 3-D image, I tested this device with a live camera in a room full of people, as i moved about the room around other subjects, at no point did the processor miss placed the front back image.

I argue that despite all of Camerons effort to have three companies evaluate what should be in the front of what, this technology was developed using tests of orginal vs visualized, it is very very good, i could not find fault with it.

regarding the other statement of the benefits of 3d, there are obvious to me. I will defend them till the day I die.

If you are talking about my opinion on the merits of seeing 3-D ALL THE TIME regardless of the source of the content, then I get even more passionate as I make up this little slogan:

So, how much will this technology cost and what will it mean for J6P? Are we talking about technology that will start out in high end displays and filter down to Walmart $199 HDTVs over time, or is it something that can be included cost effectively in projectors and flat panels by all the major players? If it cost a billion dollars to create it and a truck to transport it in 1984, it should fit in your pocket and cost 35 cents today, right?

Seriously, it should be technology that's incorporated into displays, so that any content can be converted - not something that's so expensive that it's sold only to the studios for their conversions. (And if it's good enough, who would want to pay Lucas for his Star Wars conversions, or Cameron for his Titanic conversion?) If it's too expensive, people like me don't get to play. And what's the time frame for commercialization?

Cameron and Katzenberg are heroes of mine, too. They've accelerated 3D's adoption dramatically. The first thing I watched after 3D Monsters vs Aliens on my Samsung plasma was the 2D to 3D conversion of the 2D Blu-ray of Avatar (using the Samsung's built-in capability). There were moments when I felt like I was back in the theater again. That thrill was enough to give me hope that the future of conversion might be a lot brighter than I had originally thought.

As I experimented with other content (like episodes of Eureka from Syfy), I realized that it was possible to achieve a remarkable sense of depth. The Cafe Diem scenes were shockingly realistic. Where conversion really falls apart for me is with people. I call it "flat face," a flattening of facial features that pulls me right out of the illusion. Close ups and medium shots remind me very quickly of why conversion doesn't work. And there are constant other failures, too. I usually can't go for more than a few seconds before a failure intrudes itself, and there's usually something about just about any scene that's a "fail" for me. I'll have to see it to believe it, but the success of the inexpensive implementation in current displays is enough to give me hope. I'll be following this thread closely.

OK
To start with Cameron's AVATAR is the worst 3D movie ever made. It is 100% 3D gimmick and totally unrealistic geometrically distorted parallax limit driven total brain confusion. In addition is is totally striped of any stereoscopic specular effects. Everything is paper textured with color patterns just like in any 2D to 3D conversions.
Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.
Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam.

Next, the 'money printer' or '2D to 3D magic conversion box'
Many thought of it as ultimate money making machine
even giants like Phillips Electronics got hooked on it
and spent few hundred millions to produce a ready product. It is called WOWvx and the box is selling for US$ 35k. Well, the current status is R.I.P. and nobody is buying even despite the fact that the TV is glasses free.
Why?
Because everything is 2D to 3D conversion and there is no way to show a normal stereoscopic image or a movie.

Now if you want to convince anybody that 2D to 3D is worth spending money on then you should provide some realistic performance examples which are not based on sets captured with camera horizontal panning.

Also if your examples have no stereoscopic specular effects
then I personally would not want to buy or watch such content.

Hope this does not heart your filling or get you upset.

Talking advantage of millions of 3D newbies is a short live adventure as they will quickly learn what is realistic stereoscopic content all about.

ps. problem with occlusion is non issue now since it is removed with one step by applying perspective distortion to the reconstructed 3D volume. The front foreground objects are scaled up totally covering the holes in background :-)

Mathew I welcome your comments, see you are passionate and unusually well informed, but I also see you have an ethic about making 3-D inexpensibly available to the masses.

I am not seeing that far down the road, the technologies that succeed in the high end , will trickle to the masses, it is a top down effort.

Nobody is trying to take advantage of millions of 3-D newbies, if anything of 3-D newbie millionaires. JUST KIDDING I love this stuff and it is my passion, plus it's not like I did not take my due diligence in showing it at CEDIA despite the great expenses. I took a big risk; my work is now held as a benchmark for the HT industry. So I believe I am reasonably qualified to comment how other new 3-D experiences relate to what We saw at CEDIA- that is case in point this thread.

Now regarding the absence of specular effects, and I am VERY MUCH WITH YOU ON THIS, the theory at least what I referenced to old School German Rules of 3D, they came up with a Rule( and you know how serious Germans can get about Rules ) that because the eye separation is 65 to 70 mm that is best that the 3-D remain as a window through which you are looking (ie no specular or more commonly known In your Face effects).

This box that I saw rendered fantastic although specular effects devoid 3-D.

I am familiar with several software, and the built in Samsung converter, and the Teranex is in a league of it's own, comparing favorably to Alice, Avatar and MvA in it's beautiful presentation albeit entirely "behind the screen" ecosystem portrayal.

So I hold Avatar in high esteem but I am not going to be sycophant about it, I demand more (as you have termed it) specular stereo effects, and yes I think sometimes the successes goto Cameron's head whereby sometimes he talks out of his arse, like the lot of us. It is a pity because the same camera he invented for Avatar PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that it does produce prodigious amounts of specularity (see resident Evil Afterlife- arguably the very best 3-D action movie ever made) and take it from someone who hates the franchise with a passion.

I bow to your obviously much greater knowledge of 3D. In all seriousness, I'm here to learn, and I appreciate the years of experience that people such as yourself bring to these discussions. But, I'll ask you here what I've asked you in other threads - what specifically is it that you want 3D filmmakers to do differently? In terms of 3D cameras and shooting techniques, are you saying that there is only one right way to shoot 3D? Are you saying that because he chooses to shoot 3D "unrealistically" that James Cameron's movies are bad? When you say Avatar is the worst 3D movie ever made, the generalization seems extraordinary.

When you ask the questions, "Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.
Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam." The answer appears to be: if the box office for Avatar is any indicator, over 2 billion dollars worth of them want to see that. I did - four times. Now, I'm not trying to say that because it's popular 3D, it's right. But you do seem to be saying that because it's not realistic 3D, it's wrong. I'd respond to that by saying that little about filmmaking has ever been realistic, even in 2D. As I said in a recent response to one of your posts, 2D filmmaking is full of unrealistic two dimensional distortions, including those created by wide angle, telephoto and zoom lenses, vertigo shots, camera dollies, sudden high angle to low angle transitions, etc, etc, etc, etc. These things have been used for over a century to engage and entertain people. Are you condemning such 2D lenses and shooting techniques because they're not realistic? Are you asking 2D filmmakers to stop using them? Are you asking 3D filmmakers to stop using unrealistic 3D cameras and shooting techniques and only shoot 3D the way you think it should be shot?

Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what it is you're saying, and asking. Obviously, you have a lot of experience, and you spend a great deal of time thinking about these issues. But there seems to be a disconnect between your vision of what 3D filmmaking should be, the reality of what 3D filmmakers are doing and what people like seeing in their 3D entertainment. I know I've asked this question before, and I know it sounds like I'm calling you Quixotic, but I'm really curious about what your goals are. Please have patience with me. I honestly do want to understand your position better than I do.

OK
To start with Cameron's AVATAR is the worst 3D movie ever made. It is 100% 3D gimmick and totally unrealistic geometrically distorted parallax limit driven total brain confusion. In addition is is totally striped of any stereoscopic specular effects. Everything is paper textured with color patterns just like in any 2D to 3D conversions.
Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.
Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam.

Next, the 'money printer' or '2D to 3D magic conversion box'
Many thought of it as ultimate money making machine
even giants like Phillips Electronics got hooked on it
and spent few hundred millions to produce a ready product. It is called WOWvx and the box is selling for US$ 35k. Well, the current status is R.I.P. and nobody is buying even despite the fact that the TV is glasses free.
Why?
Because everything is 2D to 3D conversion and there is no way to show a normal stereoscopic image or a movie.

Now if you want to convince anybody that 2D to 3D is worth spending money on then you should provide some realistic performance examples which are not based on sets captured with camera horizontal panning.

Also if your examples have no stereoscopic specular effects
then I personally would not want to buy or watch such content.

Hope this does not heart your filling or get you upset.

Talking advantage of millions of 3D newbies is a short live adventure as they will quickly learn what is realistic stereoscopic content all about.

ps. problem with occlusion is non issue now since it is removed with one step by applying perspective distortion to the reconstructed 3D volume. The front foreground objects are scaled up totally covering the holes in background :-)

Is there any chance that you can provide a left/right image pair of the converted content so I can see how it looks myself? Based on your pictures all I can see is that it did create a lot of parallax between the views but I can't tell how it actually looks....

I am a little confused also. In your reply to Matt you said that the Teranex did not create negative parallax: "This box that I saw rendered fantastic although specular effects devoid 3-D." Based on the screenshots it looks like the box does create negative parallax on at least the ABC logo (unless it is being shown at the same depth as the basketball player). Again having a stereo image for me to view would really help me visualize this.

Also I noticed that there appears to be vertical mismatch in certain scenes/objects. Notice that the ABC logo appears to be higher in one view. This will cause eyestrain since it should simply be shifted horizontally between views.

I will ask for that, but it will take time I am swamped with work and all this pressure has affected my GERD, so I have to take it easy for awhile.

In the meantime .

The mismatches could be the Samsung.

What shows in your images is mostly motion parallax without any geometry corrections and floating window due to frame delay. Motion parallax methods are only correct for scenes that are static and only camera pans in horizontal direction of forward/backwards using split perspective. Motion parallax sports scenes are never correct
becasue scene objects move in arbitrary directions.

Why is it that every time some asks for a sample of 2D to 3D conversion all one gets is excuses?

I bow to your obviously much greater knowledge of 3D. In all seriousness, I'm here to learn, and I appreciate the years of experience that people such as yourself bring to these discussions. But, I'll ask you here what I've asked you in other threads - what specifically is it that you want 3D filmmakers to do differently? In terms of 3D cameras and shooting techniques, are you saying that there is only one right way to shoot 3D? Are you saying that because he chooses to shoot 3D "unrealistically" that James Cameron's movies are bad? When you say Avatar is the worst 3D movie ever made, the generalization seems extraordinary.

When you ask the questions, "Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.
Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam." The answer appears to be: if the box office for Avatar is any indicator, over 2 billion dollars worth of them want to see that. I did - four times. Now, I'm not trying to say that because it's popular 3D, it's right. But you do seem to be saying that because it's not realistic 3D, it's wrong. I'd respond to that by saying that little about filmmaking has ever been realistic, even in 2D. As I said in a recent response to one of your posts, 2D filmmaking is full of unrealistic two dimensional distortions, including those created by wide angle, telephoto and zoom lenses, vertigo shots, camera dollies, sudden high angle to low angle transitions, etc, etc, etc, etc. These things have been used for over a century to engage and entertain people. Are you condemning such 2D lenses and shooting techniques because they're not realistic? Are you asking 2D filmmakers to stop using them? Are you asking 3D filmmakers to stop using unrealistic 3D cameras and shooting techniques and only shoot 3D the way you think it should be shot?

Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what it is you're saying, and asking. Obviously, you have a lot of experience, and you spend a great deal of time thinking about these issues. But there seems to be a disconnect between your vision of what 3D filmmaking should be, the reality of what 3D filmmakers are doing and what people like seeing in their 3D entertainment. I know I've asked this question before, and I know it sounds like I'm calling you Quixotic, but I'm really curious about what your goals are. Please have patience with me. I honestly do want to understand your position better than I do.

Oh,
I do not want filmmakers to change anything.
This way my upcoming 3D creations will have no competition.
But if you are interested in what it takes to create realistic
3D content follow the sticky thread on
3D Tech Talk.

VC1-2D-3D - 2D to 3D Conversion Application
Overview
The VC1-2D-3D application performs 2D to 3D conversions, accepting a single 2D input on channel 1 and outputting stereoscopic outputs on channel 1 (Left) and channel 2 (Right). The application can perform all format conversions that are supported by the VC100. The 3D conversion effect includes Intensity and Depth controls, described below. The application also allows for the insertion and positional adjustment of 3D logos.
Input
The 2D input source should be applied to video processing channel 1. When a 2D SD- or HD-SDI input is connected to Channel 1, Left Eye and Right Eye video streams will be created from the 2D input stream.
Outputs
The application will output the Left Eye video stream on Channel 1 and the Right Eye video stream on Channel 2. Both outputs will be the same format and frame rate.
Reference
The left and right output streams will sync to Input video, as well as to Blackburst or Trilevel sync on Reference 1. If syncing to Input, the system will use channel 1 as the sync source.
Video Formats Supported
The VC1-2D-3D supports all video format conversions that are supported by the VC100.
Intensity Adjustment
This control relates to the amount of the 3D effect that is applied to the two streams. The default value for this parameter is 0. The range is from -4 to +4, where -4 provides a flat image (no 3D effect) and +4 provides the most 3D effect. Most users will find that the range of -1 to +1 will provide the best viewer experience.
Depth Adjustment
This control simulates a parallax adjustment, where the overall images move forward or back relative to the viewing plane. The default value for this parameter is 0, providing an effective depth to the image. The range is -12 to +12. A positive depth adjustment will move the overall image forward, while a negative depth adjustment will move the overall image backward.
Linked Channel Processing
The two simulated streams will have linked processing control (i.e. proc amp, noise reduction, etc). Channel 1 will be the control channel and adjustments made to channel 1 will affect channel 2 simultaneously. Therefore, the front panel lights for Channel 2 will not be on.
Phase Lock
When performing a frame rate conversion, the application will ensure that the two output streams are matched in phase from the frame rate conversion.
3D Logo Insertion
3D logos can be displayed in the VC1-2D-3D application via the new 3D Logo Menu. In addition to horizontal and vertical positioning, a depth control is available, which will determine the perceived depth of the logo. Logo depth can be adjusted from -12 to +12, with a value of 0 causing the logo to appear flat. A positive logo depth adjustment will move the logo forward, while a negative logo depth adjustment will move the overall logo backward.
Audio Routing
Incoming embedded audio may be routed to CH 1 (Left) or CH 2 (Right) outputs, to both channels or to neither channel. Sixteen (16) audio channels are supported.
Ancillary Data
Any ancillary data supported by the VC100 will pass from input channel 1 to output channel 1 (Left).
Web Interface
The VC100 web interface now includes a 3D Tab with a 2D->3D sub tab.

VC1-3D-ENC - 3D Encoding Application
Overview
The VC1-3D-ENC application performs encoding of 3D video streams. The application accepts a stereoscopic input pair on channel 1 (Left) and channel 2 (Right) and outputs an encoded 3D video stream on Channel 1.
Encoding Modes
The following encoding modes are supported:
Top/Bottom (progressive formats only)
Side by Side
Sensio Side by Side
Input
An HDSDI stereoscopic input pair should be input to Channel 1 (Left) and Channel 2 (Right).
Channel 1 Control
While encoding, Channel 1 is the controlling interface. The controls for Channel 2 will be unavailable, as all settings for channel 1 will be mirrored on channel 2.
Output
The output of the VC100 is a single encoded video stream available on Channel 1 outputs 1A and 1B. The output format and frame rate must match the input format and frame rate.
Reference
The output stream will sync to Input video, as well as to Blackburst or Trilevel sync on Reference 1. If syncing to Input, the system will use Channel 1 as the sync source.
Video Formats
The VC1-3D-ENC application supports the following formats and frame rates: 1080i59.94, 1080i50, 1080p25, 1080p24, 1080sf24, 1080p23.98, 1080sf23.98, 720p59.94, 720p50
Automatic Input Detection
The automatic format detection feature of the VC100 is available in the VC1-3D-ENC application. This assures that the encoder will follow the input format upon detection of a new input video format or frame rate.
Output Matches Input
The output format and frame rate will automatically match the input format and frame rate.
Non Supported Format or Frame Rate Selection
If a non supported format/frame rate is input, the output format/frame rate shall match the input format/frame rate, but the input format shall turn red on the front panel, and the input status light shall turn red.
Audio Routing
While encoding, the user may choose to route audio either from input channel 1 (Left) or input channel 2 (Right) to the output, or to route no audio to the output. Sixteen (16) audio channels are supported. The default setting will route audio from input Channel 1 (Left) to the output.
Ancillary Data
Any supported non-audio ancillary data will pass from input channel 1 to output channel 1 (Left).
Web Interface
The VC100 web interface now includes a 3D Tab with a 3D-ENC sub tab.

VC1-3D-DEC - 3D Decoding Application
Overview
The VC1-3D-DEC application performs decoding of 3D video streams. The application accepts a single encoded 3D video stream on Channel 1 and outputs a stereoscopic pair on Channel 1 (Left) and Channel 2 (Right).
Decoding Modes
The following decoding modes are supported:
Top/Bottom (progressive formats only)
Side by Side
Sensio Side by Side
Input
An HDSDI encoded 3D video stream should be input to Channel 1.
Channel 1 Control
While decoding, Channel 1 is the controlling interface. The controls for Channel 2 will be unavailable, as all settings for channel 1 will be mirrored on channel 2.
Output
The output of the VC100 is a single encoded video stream on Channel 1.
Output
The output of the VC100 will be a stereoscopic video pair on Channel 1 (Left - Outputs 1A and 1B) and Channel 2 (Right - Outputs 2A and 2B). The output format and frame rate must match the input format and frame rate.
Reference
The output streams will sync to Input video, as well as to Blackburst or Trilevel sync on Reference 1. If syncing to Input, the system will use Channel 1 as the sync source.
Video Formats
The VC1-3D-DEC supports the following formats and frame rates: 1080i59.94, 1080i50, 1080p25, 1080p24, 1080sf24, 1080p23.98, 1080sf23.98, 720p59.94, 720p50
Automatic Input Detection
The automatic format detection feature of the VC100 is available in the VC1-3D-DEC application. This assures that the decoder will follow the input format upon detection of a new input video format or frame rate.
Output Matches Input
The output format and frame rate will automatically match the input format and frame rate.
Non Supported Format or Frame Rate Selection
If a non supported format/frame rate is input, the output format/frame rate shall match the input format/frame rate, but the input format shall turn red on the front panel, and the input status light shall turn red.
Audio Routing
While decoding, the user may choose to have audio routed from the encoded input to either Channel 1 (Left) or Channel 2 (Right), to both channels, or to neither channel. Sixteen (16) audio channels are supported.
Ancillary Data
Any supported non-audio ancillary data will pass from input Channel 1 to output Channel 1 (Left).
Web Interface
The VC100 web interface now includes a 3D Tab with a 3D-DEC sub tab.

New Features
Timecode Regeneration in FRC
Timecode Regeneration in Frame Rate Conversions (FRC) allows the user to select a default setting that permits timecode to flow in frame rate conversion mode without adjusting any timecode generator settings. When an FRC is being performed with this input mode selected, the output timecode will resync to the input timecode on every second.
Note: In Regeneration mode with an FRC application, there is a possibility that an illegal output timecode sequence may result. This would result from a frame sync situation where a frame must be duplicated or dropped. An example would be two frame zeros in the case of a duplicated frame, or a rollover from frame 28 to zero in the case of a dropped frame. The missing or extra timecode would not line up with the actual dropped or duplicated frame.
This illegal sequence may happen when the system is acting as a frame sync with an external reference. If the user is syncing to input while doing an FRC, the illegal sequence should not occur.
Also, note that the output timecode is always non-drop frame. Thus, this situation can also arise if the timecode is drop frame and a frame rate conversion is being performed.
If a user wants to guarantee that no illegal sequences occur, he can utilize jamsync mode, which will start from a certain input timecode value, then freerun the output timecode, as opposed to syncing to the input timecode every second.

Tied Reference Inputs
This new feature is applicable to dual channel units only. It provides the user with the option of tying Reference 2 to the external reference signal applied to Reference 1, thus requiring only one external reference to be connected to the VC100 system.
When on Channel 1, the REF1 reference menu allows only for the selection of REF 1. When on Channel 2, the REF2 reference menu allows for the selection of either REF1 or REF2. If the user wishes to sync Channel 2 to input video, REF2 must be selected.
This Tied Reference setting is stored as part of the system presets.

Web Interface
A radio button, labeled Ref 2 uses Ref 1, is provided on the Channel 2 Reference tab. The radio button options are ON and OFF.